Texas A&M University

16 downloads 271 Views 99KB Size Report
There tends to be a national consensus following a presidential campaign: ...... the National Rifle Association and United Seniors (an organization heavily ...
Riding High in the Polls: George W. Bush and Public Opinion

George C. Edwards III

Texas A&M University

The president’s relations with the public lie at the core of the modern presidency. Both politics and policy revolve around presidents' attempts to garner public support, both for themselves and their policies. Three fundamental and widely shared premises about the relationship between public opinion and presidential leadership underlay this mode of governance. The first is that public support is a crucial political resource for the president, that it is difficult for others who hold power to deny the legitimate demands of a president with popular support. A president who lacks the public's support is likely to face frustration and perhaps humiliation at the hands of his opponents. As Bill Clinton exclaimed after he was acquitted in his impeachment trial, "Thank god for public opinion."1 The second premise supporting the White House’s intense focus on public opinion is the view that the president must not only earn public support with his performance in office, but also must actively take his case to the people. Moreover, he must not only do it at reelection time but all the time. As Clinton adviser Dick Morris put it: Once upon a time, elections settled things for the term of office. Now, they are mere punctuation marks in an ongoing search for public support and a functioning majority. Each day is election day in modern America. . . . A politician needs a permanent campaign to keep a permanent majority.2 The third (and least analyzed) premise sustaining the public presidency is that through the permanent campaign the White House can successfully persuade or even mobilize the public. Commentators on the presidency in both the press and the academy often assume that the White House can move public opinion if the president has the skill and will to effectively exploit the "bully pulpit." As a result, modern presidents choose to engage in a permanent campaign for the public’s support as their core strategy for governing. Since September 11, 2001, George W. Bush has enjoyed extraordinarily high levels of public approval. He has also enthusiastically adopted the permanent campaign of his predecessors. In this chapter I explore the public’s evaluations of George W. Bush, his efforts to lead the public, and the impact of his public support on congressional actions on his policy proposals.

Public Evaluations Certainly one of the highest priorities of presidents is to obtain the public's support for themselves. Presidents believe that public approval increases the probabilities of obtaining the passage of legislation in Congress, positive coverage in the press, and even responsiveness in the bureaucracy. As a result of their belief in the importance of public approval, they devote an impressive amount of time, energy, and money to obtaining it. How has the public evaluated George W. Bush?

The “Honeymoon” Period The unusual nature of George W. Bush’s election had a substantial potential to weaken the start of his presidency – and eliminate any potential for a honeymoon. Receiving neither a majority nor even a plurality of the vote, Bush became the first

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 2 candidate since 1888 to be elected with fewer popular votes than his principal opponent. In light of the election results, the new president could not credibly claim a mandate from the people. Moreover, the Republicans lost seats in both houses of Congress, undermining any claim to presidential coattails. Many (mostly Democrats) saw his victory as illegitimate, because he received more than a half-million fewer votes than Al Gore and because of the peculiar circumstances surrounding the determination of the winner of Florida’s electoral votes. A Gallup poll taken just before the inauguration found that 31 percent of Americans thought Bush "won on a technicality" and 24 percent thought he "stole the election," while 45 percent said he "won fair and square." Thirty-eight percent of Americans still considered Gore to be the "real winner of the election."3 Nevertheless, Americans were optimistic that the new president would succeed in the core activities of the presidency (see Table 1). In addition, the public had confidence that the president would make progress on important issues such as improving the country’s security and education and keeping America prosperous. The public was less sanguine regarding other specific policy accomplishments, however. Most people did not feel that the president would succeed at improving race relations, the environment, or conditions for the poor; reducing crime; or healing the country’s political divisions. A plurality did not anticipate that the president would succeed in improving the healthcare system, and majorities did not believe the president could deliver on a tax cut, ensuring the long-term health of the Medicare and Social Security systems, or keeping the federal budget balanced (see Table 2). Indeed, only 46 percent of the public felt the country would be better off in four years.4 Insert Tables 1 and 2 There were forces working in the new president’s favor, however. The “positivity bias,” the tendency to evaluate positively public figures and institutions, has the greatest potential for influence in ambiguous situations, such as the beginning of a president’s term, when the new occupant of the Oval Office is unknown to the public as chief executive. There tends to be a national consensus following a presidential campaign: People want their new president to succeed and usually give him the benefit of the doubt. In addition, as people have little basis on which to evaluate the president, they may turn elsewhere for cues. The press generally treats a new chief executive favorably. Moreover, there is excitement and symbolism inherent in the peaceful transfer of power, the inaugural festivities, and the prevalent sense of “new beginnings.” All this creates a positive environment in which initial evaluations of elected presidents take place, buttressing any tendency toward the positivity bias. Bush may have lost the popular vote for president, but he received positive reviews immediately after taking office. Although he only won 48 percent of the vote the previous November, 57 percent of the public approved his performance in the first two polls taken after his inauguration. Bill Clinton began his tenure with a similar 58 percent approval rating. As is typically the case in presidential approval polls, party identification was the best predictor of approval. For example, in the February 9-11 Gallup poll, the president received approval from 88 percent of Republicans, 54 percent of Independents,

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 3 but only 31 percent of Democrats. The president’s approval level held reasonably steady, and had increased slightly to 62 percent near the symbolic 100-day mark. Another advantage for Bush was that at the beginning of his term 65 percent of the public approved of him as a person. Ninety-one percent of Republicans, 63 percent of independents and 40 percent of Democrats said they approved of Bush as a person. However, perhaps reflecting the acrimony of the election controversy, 49 percent of Democrats disapproved of Bush as a person.5 Bush also enjoyed positive evaluations on a number of personal character dimensions, particularly as someone with a vision for the country’s future and who was strong and skilled enough to achieve this vision (see Table 3). The public’s image of Bush seemed consistent with the image of a straight-talking chief executive officer that he tried to project during the campaign. Contrary to the views of his most vocal detractors, majorities of the public felt that Bush understood complex issues, and only 26 percent of the public felt he was not working hard enough to be an effective president.6 In light of the public’s evaluations of his predecessor, it is worth noting that large majorities saw the new president as honest and trustworthy. Insert Table 3 Positive evaluations of the president’s personal characteristics proved to be important, because in its April 20-22, 2001 poll, Gallup found that 52 percent of Americans considered leadership skills and vision to be the most important criterion for evaluating the president’s job performance – compared to 36 percent who felt that the president’s stance on issues was the most important criterion. Gallup found that a plurality of all key subgroups, including Bush’s natural opponents of Democrats and liberals, assigned more importance to leadership skills and vision than to agreement on issues. The importance the public accorded the president’s personal characteristics may partly explain why his overall job approval rating was higher than support for his job performance in the more specific policy-related areas. Bush’s overall approval also exceeded his approval on many specific issues. Table 4 presents results of five Gallup polls taken during his presidency. Focusing on the two polls in the pre-September 11, 2001, period, we see that the president was rated most highly on the issues that were his highest priorities: taxes, education, and defense. It is reasonable to conclude that these issues were the most salient to the public in the early months of the Bush administration. Conversely, less than 50 percent of the public approved of his performance on Social Security, unemployment, abortion, the environment, and energy. These issues evidently were less salient in evaluations of the president. Insert Table 4 Thus, President Bush appeared to be well positioned in his relations with the public early in his term. The public accorded him reasonably high levels of approval for his job performance, liked him as a person, and perceived him as having a wide range of positive personal characteristics that it valued in a chief executive. Ratings of his performance on issues were more mixed, but were positive on his priority issues.

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 4 As presidents perform their duties, citizens obtain more information and thus a more comprehensive basis for judging them. Moreover, as time passes, people may begin to perceive greater implications of presidential policies for their own lives. Overall, the president’s approval held reasonably steady in the mid-50s but had dipped to 51 percent in the Gallup poll that concluded on September 10, 2001 (Bill Clinton was at 47 percent approval at this point in his tenure). Things were not going well for the president. As Congress resumed its session following its summer recess, Democrats were beginning to blame the president’s tax cut for “defunding” the federal government and forcing Congress to spend the surplus provided by Social Security contributions. These funds were to have been placed in a “lock box,” off limits for paying current expenses. At the same time, unemployment was climbing and news about the country’s economic recession was becoming more prominent in the media. The president’s initiatives on education and funding for faith-based charities were stalled, and stories were circulating that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was being rolled in his efforts to reform the U.S. defense posture. The public was also giving the president low marks on the environment and energy (see the July 10-11, 2001, Gallup poll in Table 4). In March, the president made a series of environmental decisions that were widely viewed as pro-industry, including reversing a campaign pledge to seek a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, rescinding Bill Clinton’s regulations lowering level of arsenic acceptable in drinking water, rejecting the Kyoto accords, withdrawing the ban on building roads in 60 million acres of federal forests and limits on logging in those areas, and canceling higher efficiency standards for air conditioners. The White House also sought to permit drilling for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. Then the administration launched a national energy policy that was seen as emphasizing exploration and production rather than conservation and the development of alternative energy sources. The president played into stereotypes of conservative Republican former energy company executives being too cozy with special interests. In April, Gallup found that 63 percent of the public felt that big business had too much influence over the administration’s decisions. 7

The Rally As Figure 1 shows, the president stood at an unimpressive 51 percent approval in the Gallup poll that concluded on September 10, 2001. The terrorist attacks the next day provided the president an opportunity to remake his image and build a new relationship with the American people. Within days (perhaps hours) of the attack, questions of the president’s legitimacy or competence disappeared in the outburst of patriotism for which the commander in chief served as the focal point. In a poll on September 11, prior to Bush's short nationwide address, a Gallup poll found 78 percent of Americans expressing confidence in Bush's ability to handle the situation. The September 14-15 Gallup poll showed 91 percent of Americans approving of the way the president was handling the response to the terrorist

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 5 attacks – nearly a week before his address to a joint session of Congress. The ABC News/Washington Post poll on September 13 found the same level of approval. Equally important, Americans overwhelmingly saw the president as rising to the occasion. After a shaky start, he performed well, confident, reassuring, and resolute. As R. W. Apple, JR., wrote in the New York Times, Bush “sought to console the bereaved, comfort the wounded, encourage the heroic, calm the fearful, and . . . rally the country for the struggle and sacrifices ahead.”8 There was no more talk of a stature gap in the presidency. Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, approval of Bush’s job performance soared to 86 percent. This increase of 35 percentage points represents the largest rally effect ever recorded by the Gallup poll. The second highest jump recorded by Gallup in the past half century was during the Gulf War, when approval of the president’s father, George H. W. Bush, jumped by 20 percentage points after Operation Desert Storm was launched in January 1991. The surge in support was not limited to the president’s overall approval. In addition to the 91 percent approval of the way Bush was handling the events surrounding the terrorist attacks, almost nine in 10 Americans expressed confidence in the U.S. government’s ability to protect its citizens from future attacks. The administration also benefited in another way from the rally around the president. Although Americans overwhelmingly blamed Osama bin Laden and other countries for the terrorist attacks, a majority also blamed airport security, the CIA, and the FBI. Forty-five percent blamed the Clinton administration, but only 34 percent blamed the Bush administration.9 Shortly after September 11, the public saw Bush in a new light. Large majorities saw him as sincere, strong and decisive, an effective manager, inspiring confidence, caring about average people, and understanding complex issues (see Table 3). The following spring, the public still saw his personal characteristics and qualities in a very positive light. The president’s overall job approval level rose another 4 percentage points in the September 21-22, 2001, Gallup poll, reaching 90 percent. This approval rating was one point higher than the previous high point, registered by his father at the end of hostilities in the Persian Gulf War.10 The rally for Bush was based on changes in the evaluations of Democrats and Independents. Republicans have accorded the president strong support from his first days in office, typically providing more than 90 percent approval. Thus, there was little potential for Republicans to rally.11 The potential was much greater for Democrats and Independents, only a minority of whom ( 44 percent for Independents and 27 percent for Democrats) approved of his performance before the terrorist attacks. Immediately afterwards, their approval levels rose to more than 80 percent. Between September 11, 2001, and the end March 2002, the president maintained the approval of more than 79 percent of the public, a level unprecedented in the past half century. The president’s high overall approval was undoubtedly driven by the high evaluations of his performance on the issues of defense and foreign policy. However, his impressive approval levels seem to have had a halo effect, increasing his support unrelated issues as well. The results of the March 22-24, 2002, Gallup poll (see Table 4) show that the public’s evaluation of Bush’s handling of issues rose substantially not only for defense and foreign affairs, but also for the economy, unemployment, energy, and the

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 6 environment. He maintained the strong support he had previously achieved on education and taxes. In that same poll, the president received 86 percent approval for his performance on preventing terrorism in the U.S. and also for fighting terrorism abroad. Seventy-two percent of the public approved of his handling of the Middle East. The terrorist attacks and the resulting war on terrorism’s dominance of the public agenda, then, had the perverse consequence of solving several intractable problems facing the president. After September 11, the recession gave way as a news story to terrorism and preparation to wage war in Afghanistan. Later, the president could lay blame for economic problems at the feet of Osama bin Laden and his supporters. Everyone seemed to forget about the Social Security lock box, as Congress raced to provide whatever was needed to aid the victims of terrorism and to fight terrorists abroad. When consensual policy dominates the political landscape, presidents do well in the polls. The president’s approval ratings may have also inoculated him from being blamed for bad news. For example, in January 2002, only 20 percent of the public blamed the Bush administration “a lot” or “fairly much” for the current recession.12 In May 2002, most people agreed with the administration's contention that the information available to it prior to September 11 was not sufficient to prevent the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.13 Bush’s defense of his failure to file notification of his sale of Harken stock on time and of the accounting practices at Harken seemed to put the story to rest.

After the Rally Although the rally that began on September 11, 2001, was the most sustained in modern times, its decay was inevitable. Americans seemed to be growing uneasy amid terrorism warnings, a stagnate economy, and the failures of prominent institutions, including the FBI, CIA, major corporations, and the Catholic Church. The Gallup poll of June 3-6, 2002, found that the president’s approval had dropped 7 points in a week, and its poll of June 21-23 showed only one-third of the public believed the U.S. was winning the war on terrorism. These concerns were reflected in the drop in the public’s approval of the president’s performance on foreign affairs, the economy, and health care (see the July 26-28, 2002, results in Table 4). As in the previous summer, the administration seemed to be adrift. In June, only 54 percent of the respondents felt Bush had strong qualities of leadership. Even worse, only 42 percent had confidence in his ability to deal wisely with an international crisis and only 45 percent thought he had the skills necessary to negotiate effectively with world leaders. Fifty-seven percent felt the administration favored the rich.14 The next month, the same poll found the public evenly split on whether Bush or his aides were running the government. A plurality of 48 percent felt the U.S. was on the wrong track, 58 percent viewed business as having too much influence on Bush, and 66 percent felt the same way about business influence on the administration. Sixty-one percent of the public felt the administration’s proposal for reforming corporate accounting practices showed it was more interested in protecting the interests of large corporations than those of ordinary Americans.15

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 7 The George W. Bush administration has continually demonstrated resilience, however. In the week following its biggest drop in the Gallup poll since the rally began, it announced (“hurriedly” in the minds of critics) its proposals for a new Department of Homeland Security. This returned it to a proactive stance and also provided a distraction from congressional hearings that were critical of the federal bureaucracy’s performance. The decline in Bush's overall job approval rating during this periods was the result in large part in his losses among those who had rallied earlier: Democrats and, to a lesser degree, Independents. By the end of the summer, the president had fallen to 50 percent approval among Democrats and 56 percent among Independents. On the other hand, the president’s ratings among Republicans remained in the 90s.16 In August, the administration again seemed to be adrift. As it stepped up its rhetoric against Saddam Hussein and advocated a unilateral strategy for regime change, the U.S. found its allies reluctant partners. Indeed, many were openly critical of the president’s policy. Even more damaging were highly-visible cautionary warnings from Republican establishment figures such as James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, and Lawrence Eagleburger. Moreover, more than two-thirds of the public signaled that it was necessary to obtain resolutions authorizing going to war with Iraq from both Congress and the United Nations, authorizations the administration argued it did not require. Fifty-eight percent of the public felt the White House had not done a sufficient job of explaining to the American public why the United States might take military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power.17 In addition, the public remained quite pessimistic about the economy. Once again, the administration turned the tide. With a full-court press, discussed in the next section, the president turned the tables on its critics by asking the UN for multilateral action and Congress for a resolution authorizing force. In short order, a majority of the public concluded that the administration had made its case for going to war clearly.18 As the public became convinced that there would likely be a war with Iraq and that the White House was meeting its critics at least halfway, it began moving behind the president and his approval ratings reversed some of the losses sustained over the summer. In sum, having drifted down in the Gallup Poll as far as 65 percent in August (lower in the polls of a number of other organizations), Bush’s overall approval ratings increased slightly in September. As the spotlight turned from the economy, corporate malfeasance, and failures in the intelligence community to responses to the Iraqi threat against the United States, president's approval ratings stabilized and even increased slightly.

Bush in Historical Perspective George W. Bush’s approval ratings have been of historical proportions. According to the Gallup Poll’s calculations, Bush’s 67 percent average approval in his first year in office is second only to Kennedy’s and Eisenhower’s for a complete first year in office among presidents since Truman (see Table 5). Insert Table 5

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 8 The 67 percent job approval rating for his first year in office and the 71 percent rating in his second year were also among the highest for any year, as is shown in Table 6. Since the tenure of John F. Kennedy, only the president’s father, with a 70 percent approval rating in his third year in office, had a better full year than did George W. Bush in 2001, and no president during that period had higher approval than Bush had in his second year. Bush's second-year average was easily the highest, since Truman, for any president's second year in office. The previous best second years were his father’s 67 percent average in 1990-1991, Eisenhower's 65 percent in 1954-1955, and Johnson's 65 percent in 19651966. Insert Table 6 The Gallup figures for Bush’s average approval by quarters are shown in Table 7. The approval rating for the fourth quarter of his presidency (extending from Oct. 20 to Jan. 19) was 86 percent, a mark which has only been bettered by Harry S Truman’s 87 percent in the spring of 1945 following Franklin D. Roosevelt’s death. In recent times, only the president’s father’s 83 percent rating for the first quarter of 1991, which coincided with the successful conclusion of the Persian Gulf war, comes close the Bush’s fourth quarter average. Insert Table 7

Going Public Every president must choose a strategy for governing within the context in which he finds himself. One approach is to seek to pass legislation through relatively quiet negotiations with congressional leaders. The president’s father, George H. W. Bush, provided an example with his administration’s efforts regarding environmental, education, and budget policy. An alternative strategy is to take the case to the people, counting on public opinion to move Congress to support the president. The second President Bush, surprisingly to some, chose the latter course. Soon after taking office, the president launched a massive public relations campaign on behalf of his priority initiatives. At the core of this effort was the most extensive domestic travel schedule of any new president in American history. Bush spoke in 29 states by the end of May, often more than once. Despite a severely truncated transition, Bush lost no time in sending priority bills to Congress. Proposals for a large cut in income taxes, education reform, and increased support for faith-based charities went to Congress in short order. The White House also launched an extensive review of the nation’s defense posture. The president not only spoke extensively about each initiative, but also went to considerable lengths to focus attention on each proposal in the early weeks of the administration. The faith-based initiative received attention in the week after the inauguration, followed in successive weeks by education, tax cuts, and defense. The White House employs a “rolling” announcement format in which it alerts the press that it will be making an announcement about a legislative initiative in coming days, sparking stories on the upcoming news. Then it makes the announcement, generating yet additional stories. Finally, the president travels around the country repeating the

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 9 announcement he just made, obtaining both local and network coverage of his media events. Although the president has gone public actively, he has done so in controlled venues. As the Washington Post reported in September 2002, the Bush had devoted far more time to golf (15 rounds) than to solo news conferences (six). After holding three news conferences in his first four months, he held only three more in his next 15 months – not counting the question and answer sessions he has had with foreign leaders during this period.19 Where Bill Clinton held 73 news conferences in his first 21 months as president — most jointly with foreign leaders and other officials — and George H. W. Bush had given 61, George W. Bush gave only 36 during the same period.20

Public Relations Efforts There are less direct ways of going public than the president giving a speech. The White House employs some public relations techniques in ways that it hopes will affect broad perceptions of the Bush presidency or structure thinking about issues. These are some of the characteristic patterns in the Bush White House’s public relations efforts.

Emphasize the Bright Side. One pattern of White House public relations efforts is what one journalist described as “compromise quietly, claim victory loudly.” Bush is a pragmatist who makes the best deal he can with Congress and then declares victory. The White House knows that few Americans will notice or care that he did not get all, or even most, of what he wanted. Regarding education policy, for example, the Heritage Foundation complained on July 5, 2001, that “key elements of the president's plan – accountability, choice, flexibility and structural change – have been eliminated or weakened to the point that his design for educational reform is barely recognizable.” Two weeks earlier, however, the president projected a more optimistic view. “I'm pleased to say that we're nearing historic reforms in public education,” he said. “This is a victory for every child and for every family in America.” The administration would rather public commentary focus on the size of the president’s victory rather than whether it was a victory.21 Naturally, the White House hopes that its claims of victory will be selffulfilling, improving its reputation and thus the chances of future successes. The White House serves up its upbeat diagnosis each day and again at week's end. Bush’s aides send the talking points throughout the White House, to allies on Capitol Hill, and to Republican opinion leaders around town. Interest groups receive customized talking points, such as a list of Bush victories for Hispanics. In an era of 24-hour cable and Internet news, the administration hopes that its talking points, spoken by administration officials or allies, will be reported by outlets too pressed for time to put the claims in context.

Changing Justifications. The Bush administration has been adept at adapting rationales for its policy proposals to changing circumstances. The president advocated tax cuts as a way to return money to taxpayers as the government ran a budget surplus, a way to constrain future government growth, an insurance policy against an economic downturn, and a means of stimulating a stagnant economy. The facts that the surplus

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 10 soon disappeared, that government had to grow substantially as a result of the war on terrorism, that an economic downturn occurred, and that most of the tax reductions would not occur for years (and thus could not provide a stimulus) were ignored. On the issue of regime change in Iraq, the administration sought first to link Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda and the September 11 attacks. When those links proved tenuous, the administration proclaimed a shift in U.S. strategic defense doctrine from deterrence and containment to pre-emption of those who would use weapons of mass destruction. When critics at home and abroad complained that the U.S. was ignoring our allies in pursuit of unilateral action, the president went to New York and declared that Iraq’s refusal to comply with United Nations resolutions required multilateral action to preserve the viability of the world organization. Similarly, the president responded to critics of his usurping the legislature’s war powers by going to Congress and asking for a strong resolution of support for the use of force against Iraq. One could argue that the White House put itself in a hole in each instance, but the fact remains that the president was able to turn the tables and come out on top.

Family Friendly Media Events. The Bush White House also copied a page from Bill Clinton’s (and Dick Morris’s) playbook by staging events around the country that focused on family-friendly issues such as fitness, homeownership, reading, and adoption – typically providing largely symbolic support. Such efforts were designed to appeal to suburban women, one of the most sought-after groups of votes, and to reach people who do not focus on politics by relating to their issues in their personal lives. Local media typically gave substantial coverage to these events.

Influencing the Agenda A major goal of every administration is dominating the political agenda. Usually this means focusing public attention on its priority issues and, if possible, keeping lower priority and potentially politically damaging issues off the agenda. Karl Rove, the president’s wide-ranging senior adviser, maintained that Bush campaigned on six key issues: tax cuts, education standards, military upgrades and a missile defense shield, federal support for faith-based charities, partial privatization of Social Security, and Medicare reforms and prescription drug coverage for seniors.22 If these were Bush’s priorities, he did a good job of focusing on them. Tax cuts were the administration’s highest priority, but education reform, an overhaul of defense policy, and greater federal support for faith-based social welfare programs were also high on the list. The president not only spoke extensively about each initiative, but also went to considerable lengths to focus attention on each proposal in the early weeks of the administration. The faith-based initiative received attention in the week after the inauguration, followed in successive weeks by education, tax cuts, and defense. Not surprisingly, a study of the first 60 days of news coverage of the Bush and Clinton administrations found that Bush was more successful than Clinton in controlling his message. Each of the five major stories about Bush was on his priority initiatives, amounting to more than a third of all stories.23 During the first months in office the president has the greatest latitude in focusing on priority legislation. After the transition period, other interests have more influence on

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 11 the White House agenda. Congress is quite capable of setting its own agenda and is unlikely to defer to the president for long. In addition, ongoing policies continually force decisions to the president’s desk. The George W. Bush presidency is no exception to the challenge of controlling the national agenda. At the same time that the president was seeking support for his priority items, he had to engage in legislative battles on important issues such as campaign finance reform and a patients’ bill of rights, and make a highly visible decision on stem cell research. In fact, he had to devote one of only two nationally televised addresses (scarce presidential resources) of his first seven months in office to the latter. Bush also inevitably became embroiled in the issue of Navy practice bombings in Vieques, Puerto Rico. More damaging were his responses to the unexpected energy shortage in California and potential environmental regulations, many of which were proposed by his predecessor. His and Vice President Cheney’s energy plan was widely viewed as a sop to the oil and gas industry the two served, and many people saw the administration as having a weak commitment to environmental protection. Despite the administration’s organization and discipline regarding its legislative agenda, responding to the terrorist attacks of September 11 immediately dominated the president’s agenda. The emphasis on national unity in the weeks that followed the tragedy and the inevitable focus of the president’s energies on national security limited the opportunities for him to push hard for his most contentious proposals. We have already noted how the change in agenda solved potentially significant problems for Bush. As the recession and the Social Security lock box gave way as news stories to terrorism and preparation to wage war in Afghanistan, the public focused on consensual issues on which it rated the president highly. When the president proposed a Department of Homeland Security on June 6, 2002, and when he made his case for regime change in Iraq later in the summer, he had no difficulty dominating the nation’s agenda. Issues dealing with the security of Americans, recently shocked by terrorist attacks, easily captured the media’s and the public’s attention.

Success in Moving the Public It is one thing to go public. It is something quite different to succeed in moving public opinion. Table 8 shows responses to Gallup Poll questions on the president’s tax cut proposal. The results show that public opinion did not change in response to the president’s efforts. Insert Table 8 Also valuable for the president is demonstrating preexisting public support when that support lies in the constituencies of members of Congress who are potential swing votes. Often Bush’s travels seemed motivated more by demonstrating his support in states where he ran well in the election than in convincing more skeptical voters of the soundness of his proposals. He did not travel to California until May 29 and visited New York even later. Instead, the White House gave priority to states that Bush had won and that were

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 12 represented by Democratic senators, including Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, North and South Dakota, Montana, and North Carolina. Whatever the president’s motivations, he obtained the support of only one Senate Democrat (Zell Miller of Georgia, who announced his support of the tax cut before Bush was inaugurated) on the April 4 bellwether vote for his full tax cut. The president faced similar frustrations in increasing his public support with his two nationally televised addresses before September 11, 2001. Presidents do not speak directly to the national over national television often, and when they do they frequently seek support for themselves and their policies. Table 9 shows the difference in presidential approval in the Gallup polls taken most closely before and after each of George W. Bush’s live presidential televised address to the nation in his first two years in office. (In comparing survey results of two samples such as those employed by Gallup, differences between the results must be about 6 percentage points before we can be reasonably sure that the results reflect a real difference.) Insert Table 9 The figures in the third column of the table show that a statistically significant change in Bush’s approval following a televised presidential address occurred only once: 35 percentage points following the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. Few would attribute the public’s rallying around the commander in chief to the president’s brief comments that evening. His approval went up only one percentage point in the Gallup poll following his address to a joint session of Congress on February 27, 2001, and only two percentage points following his August 9, 2001, address on his decision regarding federal funding of stem cell research. After September 11, when his approval was very high, there was less potential to increase his support. There are many potential explanations for failing to move the public, but part of the reason for the modest response to Bush’s early addresses may be that he drew equally modest audiences. A total of 39.8 million viewers saw at least part of his nationally televised address in February 2001. This audience compares unfavorably with the 67 million viewers for Bill Clinton's first nationally televised address in 1993. Moreover, there was a substantial fall-off in viewership during the president’s speech.24 The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, increased interest in the president’s messages, however. More than 80 million watched his address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001, and his 2002 State of the Union message drew nearly 52 million viewers (plus perhaps 1.5 million watching on PBS).25 A live televised press conference on October 11, 2001 (his only one that year) drew 64.8 million viewers. As we have seen, Bush compensated for the increased difficulty of obtaining time on television for presidential speeches and of gaining an audience when television provides coverage, by traveling extensively around the country. The question is whether the increase in local appearances led to an increase in news coverage for the president and his policies. Early indications are that it did not. Figure 1 shows that a study of the news coverage of the first 60 days of the Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies found that there was a dramatic across-the-board drop-off in coverage on television, newspapers, and news weeklies. Network television coverage was down 42% and newspaper coverage (New York Times and Washington Post) was off 38%. Newsweek magazine had 59%

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 13 fewer stories about Bush in its pages than it carried about Clinton eight years earlier. Although the president was still a dominant figure on op-ed and editorial pages, he was less visible in the front pages, newscasts, and financial pages.26 This lower profile was not an asset in advancing the president’s agenda, and talk of the disappearing presidency began to be heard inside the Beltway. Insert Figure 2 here The presidency reappeared in force following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The prominence of the commander in chief in wartime and the nation’s need for reassurance and action against terrorists compelled the media to cover his words and actions and allowed him to dominating the news. The president’s most important initiative in 2002 was preparation for war with Iraq. In the late summer, the White House decided it should move on regime change in Iraq and sought the public’s backing. The context in which Bush sought this support was certainly favorable. Majorities had generally supported U.S. military action in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power in surveys conducted over the previous 10 years, stretching back to the end of the Gulf War. The American public has had strongly negative perceptions of Iraq and its leader. Saddam Hussein received the worst rating of any public figure tested in Gallup Poll history – 1 percent positive and 96 percent negative in a December 1998 Gallup Poll.27 In early 2002, the country of Iraq received a 6 percent favorable and 88 percent unfavorable rating, the worst of any of the 25 countries tested in that poll.28 Since 1991, Iraq had never received even a 10 percent favorable rating.29 Asked in February 2001 what country was America's worst enemy, Americans named Iraq significantly more often than any other country.30 In September 2002, Gallup reported that most Americans felt that Iraq had developed or was developing weapons of mass destruction. Many Americans felt that if left alone, Iraq will use those weapons against the United States within five years. Most Americans felt that Saddam Hussein sponsored terrorism that affected the United States. A little more than half of Americans took the additional inferential leap and concluded that Saddam Hussein was personally and directly involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.31 On August 26, 2002, Vice President Richard Cheney delivered a hard-hitting speech laying out the administration’s case for invading Iraq. On September 11, the president delivered a nationally televised address on anniversary of the terrorist attacks. The next day he addressed the United Nations, demanding that it take action to disarm Iraq. Later, he asked Congress to pass a resolution authorizing him to use force against Iraq. On October 7, Bush addressed the nation again, delivering his most comprehensive presentation regarding the likely need to use force against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. Table 10 shows public support for the invasion of Iraq. Public opinion did not change in response to the administration’s blitzkrieg. Gallup used the phrase “sending American ground troops” in the question about invading Iraq. Some other polling organizations simply asked about “military action” – an easier threshold – and found higher levels of support. The president, of course, sought support for the use of ground troops as well as other means of projecting force. Nevertheless, surveys by the Pew

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 14 Research Center the CBS/New York Times Poll found little or no change in public support for invading Iraq since the summer and before the White House’s public relations effort. Indeed, Pew found that between mid-August and the end of October support for taking military action in Iraq to end Saddam Hussein's rule decreased by 9 percentage points.32 Insert Table 10 here In addition, the public expressed reservations and conditions to their support. It had a strong preference for both a congressional authorization for the use of force and securing the participation of allies.33 It also preferred to wait for weapons inspectors to attempt to disarm Iraq before the U.S. took military action. At the same time, people said they were more concerned with economy than with Iraq and 69 percent (including 51 percent of Republicans) complained that Bush should be paying more attention to the economy.34 It is interesting to note that Bush’s October 7 speech was strictly nonpartisan, the venue for the speech was chosen for the absence of a statewide election in the midterm elections, and the subject focused on what is perhaps the most important decision a nation can take. Nevertheless, ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS chose not to carry the president’s remarks. The White House was reluctant to make a special request for airtime out of concern for fanning fears of an imminent invasion, but it would have welcomed coverage. The networks argued that the president’s speech contained little that was new. In the absence of breaking news, the commander in chief was unable to obtain airtime to discuss his thinking about going to war. As a result, only about 17 million people viewed the speech.35

Midterm Elections. In the month following the president’s speech, he engaged in the most active mid-term campaigning of any president in history. In the end, the Republicans gained seats in both houses of Congress, maintaining the majority in the House and regaining it in the Senate. The historic nature of these gains (exceeded only once – in 1934 – in the previous century) generated considerable commentary about the president’s public leadership. Bush campaigned relentlessly, covering 15 carefully chosen states in the last five days alone, and he rallied his party. The most significant fact about the Republican success in the elections was the heavy turnout in Republican base, not Democratic abstentions. A Gallup poll taken the weekend before election found 64 percent of Republicans were “more enthusiastic” about voting than in the past, while only 51 percent of Democrats responded that way.36 On the other had, the Democrats failed to rally – they had little to rally around, lacking both a message and a messenger. Voters did not necessarily support the Republicans on the issues, but the White House succeeded in turning the election into a referendum on popular president.37 Most people who entered the booths did not have terrorism on their minds. More were concerned about the economy and the prospect of war with Iraq. But the minority who did have terrorism on their minds was overwhelmingly Republican, and the Democrats were not able to establish positioning on enough of the other issues to counter this strong GOP advantage. Despite the Republican success, perspective is important. The election was very close. The Washington Post reported that a change of 41,000 votes in only two states out

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 15 of 77 million cast nationwide would have kept the Senate in Democratic hands. As political analyst Charlie Cook put it, “This was a year of very close races that, for the most part, broke toward Republicans but in no way reflected a significant shift in the national direction.”38 In addition, the Republicans enjoyed several advantages. Because the president lacked coattails in 2000, there was less chance for setbacks in the midterm elections. Few Republicans held seats that lacked a substantial Republican base. Second, the Republicans had gained as a result of redistricting following the 2000 Census. Both the National Journal and Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report concluded that the Republican gains in the House almost exactly matched these gains.39 (The Republicans were successful, however, in boosting the security of representatives who won narrowly in 2000.) Democrats were also forced to play on Republican turf, trying to pick up seats in traditionally Republican areas. For example, 26 out of the country’s 45 competitive House seats were in districts where Gore got less than 50 percent of the vote in 2000.40 The Democrats’ seven strongest bids to take over Republican-held seats were in states Bush won in 2000, and four of the six vulnerable Democratic seats were in states won by Bush and Gore only narrowly carried the other two, Minnesota and Iowa. The Republicans raised more money than the Democrats (although not in Georgia), and in a handful of hotly contested races, the money helped. Having more money also allowed the Republicans to concentrate it in battleground states and districts.41 The Republicans also enjoyed an advantage with candidates. The White House actively recruited quality candidates, including Senate winners Norm Coleman, Jim Talent, and Saxby Chambliss. The memorial service for Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone a few days before the election turned into a political rally, alienating some voters in a closelycontested election and giving Coleman an excuse to resume his campaign. Charlie Cook found no Republican wave except perhaps in Georgia. Instead, he concluded that the midterm elections in 2002 were mainly decided by the basics in getting out the vote.42 Indeed, the Republicans operated a finely engineered voter-mobilization effort. In Georgia, the state with the biggest Republican successes, the party implemented a meticulous organizational plan that included computer analysis, training programs for volunteers, and a voter registration drive followed by massive mailing, telephone, and neighborhood canvasses in the closing days of campaign. The president visited as late as November 2 to energize the Republican ranks. Aiding this grassroots mobilization were the National Rifle Association and United Seniors (an organization heavily underwritten by drug industry).43

The Impact of High Approval on Congress One of the perennial questions about presidential-congressional relations is the impact of the president’s public approval on the support he received in Congress. Did George W. Bush’s extraordinarily high approval ratings following the terrorist attacks provide him a significant political resources in his attempts to obtain congressional support for his policies? Did the patriotic response to the attacks help him to mobilize the public on behalf of his programs? Bush certainly seemed aware of the potential advantages of public support – as well as its ephemeral nature. As the president put it, “It is important

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 16 to move as quickly as you can in order to spend whatever capital you have as quickly as possible.”44 Where the public supported his policies – on fighting the war on terrorism abroad, on investigating and prosecuting terrorism at home, and in reorganizing the government to enhance domestic security – the president ultimately won most of what he sought. Even on security issues, however, the going was not always easy. He lost on the issue of privatizing airport security workers, although Congress considered the bill in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks. The president also faced a protracted battle over the new Department of Homeland Security when his proposal for additional flexibility in personnel policy in the department infuriated labor unions, a core Democratic constituency. Passing legislation was even more difficult on the divisive domestic issues that remained on Congress’s agenda, including health care, environmental protection, energy, the economy, the faith-based initiative, corporate malfeasance, judicial nominees, and taxes. The politics of the war on terrorism did not fundamentally alter the consideration of these issues, which continued to divide the public and their representatives in Congress as they had before. The inevitable differences between the parties emerged predictably, exacerbated by the narrow majorities in each chamber and the jockeying for advantage in the midterm elections. Bipartisanship in one arena (the war on terrorism) does not necessarily carry over in another. As the parties in Congress have become more homogeneous over time and as the number of competitive seats has shrunk, especially in the House, the differences between the parties have increased. The opposition party is not very fertile ground for presidents on most issues – even during wartime. Thus, the president failed to obtain many of his priority items in 2002, including making the 2001 tax cuts permanent and passing his fiscal stimulus program, a robust faith-based initiative, and drilling rights in the Artic National Wildlife Reserve. No progress was made on partially privatizing Social Security, banning cloning and certain kinds of abortion, and passing private-school tax credits, and the president experienced plenty of frustration on obtaining confirmation of his judicial appointees. He also had to sign a farm bill that was much more costly than he wanted. In December 2001, the president concluded quiet negotiations with the Democrats led by Senator Edward Kennedy and signed a bill on education reform. The president was able to claim a victory on one of his priority issues, even though he had to give up many of the most controversial elements of his original proposal. It is significant that to accomplish even this much, the president chose to stay private rather than go public. The modest impact of Bush’s approval is not surprising. The president’s public support must compete for influence with other, more stable factors that affect voting in Congress, including ideology, party, personal views and commitments on specific policies, and constituency interests. Although constituency interests may seem to overlap with presidential approval, they should be viewed as distinct. It is quite possible for constituents to approve of the president but oppose him on particular policies, and it is opinions on these policies that will ring most loudly in congressional ears. Members of Congress are unlikely to vote against the clear interests of their constituents or the firm tenets of their ideology solely in deference to a widely supported chief executive.45

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 17

Conclusion The tragic events of September 11, 2001, propelled George W. Bush to levels of public approval unmatched in the lifetimes of most Americans. Even before that date, Bush had been extraordinarily focused and active in seeking public support for his policies, moving the permanent campaign to new heights. Despite the advantages of the greatest rally event in polling history, the president has faced the same frustrations in moving public opinion as his predecessors. In addition, the president’s standing in the polls has not led to equally impressive successes in obtaining support in Congress. It is one thing to go public. It is something quite different to succeed. Nevertheless, as the president reached the midpoint of his term, he could look forward to working with Republican majorities in each house of Congress. The president’s high approval ratings and his persistence in his efforts at mobilizing his party’s base supporters provided the critical difference in the historic midterm elections of 2002. Divided government matters.46 In a closely divided legislature, marginal change in the party balance can significantly increase the probability of the White House winning on its priority issues, ranging from nominations to tax cuts. The George W. Bush administration has been a surprise to many observers, who underestimated both the president’s character and his political skills. Overnight can be a lifetime in politics, but as the president began his third year in office, he seemed to be well positioned to run for reelection in 2004.

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 18

Table 1 EARLY EXPECTATIONS OF PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH % Confident that the president can: Set a good moral example

81

Use military force wisely

78

Prevent major scandals in his administration

77

Manage the executive branch wisely

77

Work effectively with Congress to get things done

74

Fulfill the proper role of the U.S. in world affairs

72

Handle an international crisis

Source: CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, January 15-16, 2001.

71

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 19

TABLE 2 Expectations of the George W. Bush Administration

Do you think the Bush administration will or will not be able to do the following? % Will

% Will Not

Improve military security for the country

81

16

Improve education

66

32

Keep America prosperous

63

33

Increase respect for the presidency

61

36

Improve respect for the United States abroad

58

38

Improve moral values in the United States

55

41

Keep the federal budget balanced

50

46

Ensure the long-term strength of the Social

50

44

Cut your taxes

49

46

Ensure the long-term strength of the Medicare

49

44

Improve the healthcare system

46

49

Improve race relations

44

51

Reduce the crime rate

44

50

Improve conditions for the disadvantaged

44

51

Improve the quality of the environment

42

52

Heal political divisions in this country

41

53

Security system

System

and the poor

________________________________________________________________________ Source: Gallup poll, January 15-16, 2001.

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 20

Table 3 Evaluations of Bush Characteristics and Qualities Saying Applies % Characteristic

2/ 9-11/01 4/20-22/01 10/5-6/01

Has vision for country’s future

69 68

68 64

67

Is a strong and decisive leader

61

60

Can manage the government effectively

61

Shares your values

57

58

Inspires confidence

57

55

75

Cares about the needs of people like you

56

59

69

Understands complex issues

55

56

Generally agrees with you on issues you care about

53

Is a person you admire

49

77

69

70

75

77

70

76

79

75

66

67

67

60

54

66

65

66

60

56

69

68

60

60

64 64

57 84

76

Provides good moral leadership

84

Puts the country's interests ahead of his own political interests

72

Is not a typical politician

54

Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think it applies or doesn't apply to George W. Bush. How about [ROTATED]? Source: Gallup Poll

1/10-12/03 68

Is honest and trustworthy

Is sincere in what he says

7/26-28/02

74

Can get things done Is tough enough for the job

Keeps his promises

4/29-5/1/02

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 21

Table 4 Issue Approval for George W. Bush % Approve Issue Overall Economy Foreign Affairs Defense Education Taxes Budget Unemployment Environment Abortion Energy Social Security Health Care Source: Gallup Poll.

4/20-22/01

7/10-11/01

3/22-24/02

7/26-28/02

1/10-12/03

62 55 56 66 62 54 52 47 46 43 43

57 54 54

79 65 71 80 63 64 51 57 53 49 57 47 52

69 52 63

58 53 48 63 57 49 43

63 60

46 45 49

62

39

47

41

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 22

Table 5 First Year Average Job Approval Ratings, Truman to G. W. Bush President

Dates

Average Approval %

Truman*

4/20/45-1/19/46

77

Kennedy

1/20/61-1/19/62

76

Johnson*

11/22/63-1/19/64

76

Eisenhower

1/20/53-1/19/54

69

George W. Bush

1/20/01-1/19/02

67

Bush

1/20/89-1/19/90

66

Carter

1/20/77-1/19/78

62

Nixon

1/20/69-1/19/70

61

Reagan

1/20/81-1/19/82

57

Ford*

1/20/74-1/19/75

51

Clinton

1/20/93-1/19/94

49

*Substantially abbreviated first year because of the death or resignation of predecessor. Source: Gallup Poll.

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 23

Table 6 Top Yearly Averages of Presidential Job Approval President

Date

Average Approval %

Truman*

1/20/45-1/19/46

77

Kennedy

1/20/61-1/19/62

76

Johnson*

11/22/63-1/19/64

76

Johnson

1/20/64-1/19/65

73

Eisenhower

1/20/55-1/19/56

72

Kennedy

1/20/62-1/19/63

72

Eisenhower

1/20/56-1/19/57

72

G. W. Bush

1/20/02-1/19/03

71

G. Bush

1/20/91-1/19/92

70

Eisenhower

1/20/53-1/19/54

69

G. W. Bush

1/20/01-1/19/02

67

G. Bush

1/20/90-1/19/91

67

G. Bush

1/20/89-1/19/90

66

Eisenhower

1/20/54-1/19/55

65

Johnson

1/20/65-1/19/66

65

Eisenhower

1/20/59-1/19/60

64

*Substantially abbreviated first year because of the death or resignation of predecessor. Source: Gallup Poll.

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 24

Table 7 George W. Bush’s Quarterly Job Approval Ratings Dates 1/20-4/19/01 4/20-7/19/01 7/20-10/19/01 10/20/01-1/19/02 1/20-4/19/02 4/20-7/19/02 7/20-10/19/02 10/20/02-1/19/03 Source: Gallup Poll.

% Approval 58 56 68 86 80 75 68 64

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 25

Table 8 Support for George W. Bush Tax Cut

Poll Date

Favor %

Oppose %

No Opinion %

Feb. 9-11, 2001 56

34

10

Feb. 19-21, 2001

53

30

17

March 5-7, 2001

56

34

10

April 20-22, 2001

56

35

9

___________________________________________________________ Source: Gallup Poll, “Based on what you have read or heard, do you favor or oppose the federal income tax cuts George W. Bush has proposed?”

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 26

Table 9 Changes in Approval Ratings after George W. Bush National Addresses Date of Speech January 20, 2001 February 27, 2001 August 9, 2001 September 11, 2001 September 20, 2001 October 7, 2001 November 8, 2001 January 29, 2002 June 6, 2002 September 11, 2002 October 7, 2002

Subject of Speech Inaugural Administration Goals Stem Cell Research Terrorist Attack Terrorist Attack War in Afghanistan (afternoon) War on Terrorism* State of the Union Department of Homeland Security Anniversary of Terrorist Attacks War with Iraq**

Source: Gallup Poll *Broadcast by only one network. **Broadcast by only Fox, not ABC, NBC, CBS, or PBS.

Change in Approval (Percentage Points) NA 1 2 35 4 2 0 -2 4 4 -5

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 27

Table 10 Public Support for Invasion of Iraq Poll Date

Favor %

Oppose %

No Opinion %

February 19-21, 2001 52 42 6 November 26-27, 2001 74 20 6 June 17-19, 2002 61 31 8 August 19-21, 2002 53 41 6 September 2-4, 2002 58 36 6 September 5-8, 2002 58 36 6 September 13-16, 2002 57 39 4 September 20-22, 2002 57 38 5 October 3-6, 2002 53 40 7 October 14-17, 2002 56 37 7 October 21-22, 2002 54 40 6 November 8-10, 2002 59 35 6 November 22-24, 2002 58 37 5 December 9-10, 2002 55 39 6 December 16-17, 2002 58 35 7 December 19-22, 2002 53 38 9 January 3-5 56 38 6 January 10-12 56 38 6 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Source: Gallup Poll, “Would you favor or oppose sending American ground troops to the Persian Gulf in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq?”

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 28

Figure 1 George W. Bush Job Approval Date

Approve %

Disapprove % No Opinion %

2003 January 13-16

61

34

5

January 10-12

58

37

5

January 3-5

63

32

5

61 63 63 64 68 63 67 62 67 68 66 70 66 66 65 68 71 69 69 73 76 76 73 74 74 70 77 76 76 77 77 75

32 33 32 29 27 29 28 31 28 26 30 26 30 29 28 26 23 26 24 21 18 19 21 20 18 23 17 17 19 20 17 20

7 4 5 7 5 8 5 7 5 6 4 4 4 5 7 6 6 5 7 6 6 5 6 6 8 7 6 7 5 3 6 5

2002 December 19-22 December 16-17 December 9-10 December 5-8 November 8-10 Oct. 31-Nov. 3 October 21-22 October 14-17 October 3-6 September 23-26 September 20-22 September 13-16 September 5-8 September 2-4 August 19-21 August 5-8 July 29-31 July 26-28 July 22-24 July 9-11 July 5-8 June 28-30 June 21-23 June 17-19 June 7-8 June 3-6 May 28-29 May 20-22 May 6-9 April 29-May 1 April 22-24 April 8-11

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 29 April 5-7 March 22-24 March 18-20 March 8-9 March 4-7 March 1-3 February 8-10 February 4-6 January 25-27 January 11-14 January 7-9 2001 December 14-16 December 6-9 November 26-27 November 8-11 November 2-4 October 19-21 October 11-14 October 5-6 September 21-22 September 14-15 September 7-10 August 24-26 August 16-19 August 10-12 August 3-5 July 19-22 July 10-11 June 28-Jul 1 June 11-17 June 8-10 May 18-20 May 10-14 May 7-9 April 20-22 April 6-8 March 26-28 March 9-11 March 5-7 February 19-21 February 9-11 February 1-4

76 79 79 80 77 81 82 82 84 83 84

19 17 16 14 18 14 14 14 13 13 12

5 4 5 6 5 5 4 4 3 4 4

86 86 87 87 87 88 89 87 90 86 51 55 57 57 55 56 57 52 55 55 56 56 53 62 59 53 58 63 62 57 57

11 10 8 9 9 9 8 10 6 10 39 36 34 35 35 33 35 34 33 35 36 31 33 29 30 29 29 22 21 25 25

3 4 5 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 10 9 9 8 10 11 8 14 12 10 8 13 14 9 11 18 13 15 17 18 18

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 30 Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president? Source: Gallup Poll

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 31

Figure 2 Media Coverage of the President in the First 60 Days

Source: The Project For Excellence in Journalism, The First 100 Days: How Bush Versus Clinton Fared In the Press.

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 32

Notes 1

Quoted in Bob Woodward, Shadow (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999), p.

2

Dick Morris, The New Prince (Los Angeles, CA: Renaissance Books, 1999), pp.

513. 75, 72. 3

Gallup Poll, January 15-16, 2001. Gallup Poll, January 15-16, 2001. 5 Gallup poll, February 9-11, 2001. 6 Gallup poll, April 20-22, 2001. 7 Gallup poll, April 20-22, 2001. 4

8

“After the Attacks: Assessment; President Seems to Gain Legitimacy,” September 16, 2001, p. A1. 9

Gallup poll, September 14-15, 2001. Gallup poll of February 28-March 3, 1991. 11 On this point, see George C. Edwards III and Tami Swenson, “Who Rallies? The Anatomy of a Rally Event,” Journal of Politics 59 (February 1997): 200-12. 12 Gallup poll, January 11-14, 2002. 13 Gallup poll, May 20-22, 2002. 14 CBS News/New York Times poll, June 14-18, 2002, 15 CBS News/New York Times poll, July 13-16, 2002, 16 Gallup poll, August 19-21, 2002. 17 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, September 2-4, 2002. 18 The switch was from 37 percent agreeing the administration had made a clear case in late-August to 52 percent in mid-September. Pew Research Center poll, September 12-16, 2002. 19 Dana Milbank, “Bush by the Numbers, as Told by a Diligent Scorekeeper,” Washington Post, September 3, 2002, p. A15. 10

20

Jim Rutenberg quoting Martha Joynt Kumar, “White House Keeps a Grip on Its News,” New York Times, October 14, 2002, C10. 21

Dana Milbank, “ No Lemons; It’s All Lemonade in Bush’s White House,” Washington Post, July 22, 2001, B1. 22 Alexis Simendinger, “The Report Card They Asked For,” National Journal, July 21, 2001, p. 2335. 23 The Project For Excellence in Journalism, The First 100 Days: How Bush Versus Clinton Fared In the Press, 2001. 24 Washington Post, March 1, 2001, p. C1. 25 Lisa de Moraes, “President Bush Has America Tuning In,” Washington Post, January 21, 2002, p. C7. 26 The Project For Excellence in Journalism, The First 100 Days: How Bush Versus Clinton Fared In the Press, 2001.

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 33

27

Gallup poll of December 28-29, 1998. Gallup poll, February 4-6, 2002. 29 Chris Chambers, Americans Most Favorable Toward Canada, Australia and Great Britain; Iran, Libya and Iraq Receive the Lowest Ratings,” Gallup Poll News Release, February 16, 2001. 30 Gallup poll, February 1-4, 2001. 31 Frank Newport, “Public Wants Congressional and U.N. Approval Before Iraq Action,” Gallup Poll News Release, September 6, 2002. 32 See Pew Research Center survey report of October 30, 2002. 33 Editors of the Gallup Poll, “Nine Key Questions About Public Opinion on Iraq,” Gallup Poll News Release, October 1, 2002; Lydia Saad, “Top Ten Findings About Public Opinion and Iraq,” Gallup Poll News Release, October 8, 2002. 34 CBS/New York Times poll, October 3-5, 2002. 28

35

Jim Rutenberg, “Speech Had Big Audience Despite Networks’ Action,” New York Times, October 9, 2002, p. A13. 36 William Schneider, “The Bush Mandate,” National Journal, November 9, 2002, p. 3358; Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder, “Positive Ratings for the G.O.P., If Not Its Policy,” New York Times, November 26, 2002, A1 and A 22. 37 William Schneider, “A Popularity Contest,” National Journal, November 16, 2002, p. 3346. 38 Charlie Cook, “Off to the Races: So Much For The GOP Sweep,” Tuesday, Dec. 10, 2002. 39 Richard E. Cohen, “New Lines, Republican Gains,” National Journal, November 9, 2002, p. 3285; Richard E. Cohen, “New Lines, Republican Gains,” National Journal, November 9, 2002, p. 3285; Gregory L. Giroux, “Redistricting Helped GOP,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, November 9, 2002, pp. 2934-2935. 40 Charlie Cook, “A Landslide? That Talk is Mostly Just Hot Air,” National Journal, November 9, 2002, p. 3346-47. 41 Bob Benenson, “GOP Won Midterm by Winning Series of Small Battles,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, November 9, 2002, pp. 2890. See also Jim VandeHei and Dan Balz, “In GOP Win, a Lesson in Money, Muscle, Planning,” Washington Post, November 10, 2002, pp. A1, A6, A7. 42

Charlie Cook, “A Landslide? That Talk is Mostly Just Hot Air,” National Journal, November 9, 2002, p. 3346-47. 43 Peter H. Stone and Shawn Zeller, “Business and Conservative Groups Won Big,” National Journal, November 9, 2002, p. 3355. 44 Quoted in Dana Milbank, “Bush Popularity Isn’t Aiding GOP Domestic Agenda,” Washington Post, June 16, 2002, p. A4. 45 On the question of the impact of presidential approval on presidential support in Congress, see George C. Edwards III, At the Margins: Presidential Leadership of Congress (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989); and George C. Edwards III,

Edwards, Riding High in the Polls, p. 34

“Aligning Tests with Theory: Presidential Approval as a Source of Influence in Congress,” Congress and the Presidency 24 (Fall 1997): 113-130. 46 George C. Edwards III, Andrew Barrett, and Jeffrey S. Peake, “The Legislative Impact of Divided Government,” American Journal of Political Science 41 (April 1997): 545-563.